↓ Skip to main content

Australian integrative oncology services: a mixed-method study exploring the views of cancer survivors

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Australian integrative oncology services: a mixed-method study exploring the views of cancer survivors
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12906-018-2209-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Hunter, Jane Ussher, Chloe Parton, Andrew Kellett, Caroline Smith, Geoff Delaney, Eleanor Oyston

Abstract

The significant use of traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) by cancer survivors is well documented. The aim of this study was to explore cancer survivors' views on integrating T&CM services with conventional cancer care. A mixed-method study design with an emphasis on qualitative methodology was used to conduct and analyse four focus group interviews and an on-line survey. Purposive sampling recruited 33 cancer survivors and caregivers from Arabic, Vietnamese, Chinese and Anglo-European Australian backgrounds who participated in one of four focus group interviews, and 121 cancer survivors who responded to an on-line survey. The inductive thematic analysis was augmented with a descriptive statistical analysis. Most participants had used T&CM therapies or consulted T&CM practitioners as an adjuvant during and/or after their initial cancer treatment. Two themes emerged: 'positive perceptions and experiences' and 'barriers and unmet needs'. Participants emphasised that T&CM was not a 'luxury item', rather it was considered important for managing side effects and comorbidities, rehabilitation and quality of life. A wide range of complex, interrelated barriers and solutions to IO service provision and access were identified. Structural barriers included inadequate service provision, medical practitioner attitudes, logistical constraints and funding. Personal barriers were influenced by the severity of impairment and disability; attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about T&CM; and available resources (e.g. finances, time, transport). Unmet need and inequitable access was exacerbated by geographical location, ethnicity and ability to pay. There was a mismatch between where participants were accessing T&CM services and their preference for IO service delivery. Participants perceived hospital-based IO services availability to have several benefits, including the T&CM practitioners having more expert knowledge about cancer care, the convenience of co-locating oncology services, and potentially lower out-of-pocket costs. Patients' use, preferences and needs for T&CM services in the oncology setting are important for informing service provision. Inequitable, unmet need reflected the increasing demand and expectation from patients for their oncology teams to be well informed about the benefits, risks and indications for T&CM use, and for the public and private health sectors to formally integrate and fund IO services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Master 11 8%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 47 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Psychology 11 8%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Unspecified 5 4%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 52 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,392,194
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,697
of 3,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,764
of 327,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#27
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,423 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.